This report concludes that the Government should seek to rejoin the 35 measures that have already been identified, but that it should also seek to rejoin an additional set of measures: implementing measures related to Europol's continued operation; the Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law; the European Judicial Network; the European Probation Order; and the Convention of Driving Disqualifications. The Government has still not dealt with earlier reports' conclusions about the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and its jurisdiction. What is more, the Government's general approach to the CJEU is not consistent with its decision to opt back into many other post-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. The Government also needs to work flexibly with the European Commission in order to avoid any gaps in the application of the measures the UK will seek to rejoin. For example, we must ensure that rejoining the European Arrest Warrant is water-tight well in advance of the opt-out taking effect, to prevent problems for our criminal justice system. The report also recommends that the Government conduct a review of the impact of the opt-out decision three years after it has taken effect, and report its conclusions to Parliament

The report EU Police and Criminal Justice Measures: The UK's 2014 Op-out Option (HL 159) examines the consequences to the UK should the Government choose to opt-out of approximately 130 EU police and criminal justice measures, that were adopted before the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009. The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is the single most important pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measure and, if the Government decides to exercise the opt-out, the Committee recommends that it should opt back in to the EAW immediately, to avoid any gap in its application. The Committee also expresses particular concern about the potential impact that the opt-out, including the loss of the EAW, could have on efforts by the UK and Ireland to effectively tackle cross-border crime, and does not believe that possible alternatives to the EAW would be adequate. The Committee concludes that the Government has not made a convincing case to opt-out and that to do so would h

Although both Canada and the United Kingdom had experienced terrorism prior to the attacks of 9/11 and already had in place extensive provisions to deal with terrorism, the events of that day led to the enactment of new and expansive counter-terrorism legislation being enacted in both jurisdictions. This book explores these changes to counter-terrorism laws and policies in the UK and Canada in order to demonstrate that despite the force of international legal instruments, including the heavily scrutinized UN Security Council Resolution 1373, the evolution of counter-terrorism policies in different jurisdictions is best analyzed and understood as a product of local institutional structures and cultures. The book compares legal and political structures and cultures within Canada and the United Kingdom. It analyses variations in the evolution post-9/11 counter-terrorism measures in the two jurisdictions and explores the domestic reasons for them. While focus is primarily geared towards security certificates and bail with recognizance/investigative hearings in Canada, and detention without trial, control orders and TPIMs in the UK, the use of secret evidence in the wider national security context (terrorist listing, civil litigation, criminal prosecutions, etc.) is also discussed. The book reveals how domestic structures and cultures, including the legal system, the relative stability of government, local human rights culture, and geopolitical relationships all influence how counter-terrorism measures evolve. In this sense, the book utilizes a methodology that is both comparative and interdisciplinary by engaging in legal, political, historical and cultural analyses. This book will be particularly useful for target audiences in the fields of comparative law and criminal justice, counter-terrorism law, human rights law, and international relations and politics.

On 26 November 2015 the Home Secretary announced, by means of a Written Ministerial Statement, the Government's intention to invite both Houses of Parliament to agree that the United Kingdom should rejoin the Prèm Decisions. These are two Council Decisions1 under which the police forces of EU Member States are able automatically to share DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data. The Government has also invited the two Houses to agree that the United Kingdom rejoin the Framework Decision on the accreditation of forensic service laboratories, 2 which recognises the validity of DNA and fingerprint analyses from other Member States and is necessary for participation in the Prèm Decisions. Although at the time of writing a motion had not been tabled, the Committee understanding is that there will be a debate in the House of Commons on 8 December, and in the House of Lords on 9 December. The purpose of this Report, is to assist the House, both by presenting the background to the debate in a more succinct and accessible format than the Government has provided, and by putting on the record the view of the European Union Committee on why the UK should rejoin the Prèm Decisions. It is clear to the Committe that the major benefit of fully implementing Prèm is that the initial automated exchange of data relating to criminal investigation, enabling targeted follow-up action, would solve more crimes more quickly, would identify international criminals and volume crime more effectively, and would build up intelligence relevant to the investigation of very serious crime, including terrorism. The recent increase in the level of the terrorist threat underlines the critical importance of realising these benefits, in order to protect the people of the United Kingdom more effectively.

EU criminal law is one of the fastest evolving, but also challenging, policy areas and fields of law. This Handbook provides a comprehensive and advanced analysis of EU criminal law as a structurally and constitutionally unique policy area and field of research. With contributions from leading experts, focusing on their respective fields of research, the book is preoccupied with defining cross-border or ‘Euro-crimes’, while allowing Member States to sanction criminal behaviour through mutual cooperation. It contains a web of institutions, agencies and external liaisons, which ensure the protection of EU citizens from serious crime, while protecting the fundamental rights of suspects and criminals. Students and scholars of EU criminal law will benefit from the comprehensive research present in this Handbook. National and EU policy-makers, as well as judges, defence lawyers and human rights lawyers will find the analysis of current legal action, combined with proposed solutions, useful to their work